Hardly a bloodbath to still have 36 x Major Generals in 2020 when we'll probably have less battlegroups, but should get rid of some of the 'self-licking' outfits that I've had the misfortune to work in.

Judging by the amount of Brigadiers and Colonels who were hanging around at Ex PASHTUN HORIZON this week demanding to be briefed, there would have to be a VERY big cull. I think they must have been breeding someone behind the CATT building....

Do the numbers. Despite the document giving the impression that a cut above a proportional reduction with the general force size is what is planned (in fact, openly stating it in para 10 "[the reduction proposals] should be judged against 2 truths...that our current ratio of senior cadre to personnel is too high"), the suggested reductions are simply in line with the overall force reduction:

The final figures given there come out as:

RN current ratio: 1.101%RN 2020 ratio: 1.100%

Army current ratio: 0.776%Army 2020 ratio: 0.794%

RAF current ratio: 1.049%RAF 2020 ratio: 1.048%

Civil Service current ratio: 3.820%Civil Service 2020 ratio: 3.819%

So proportionally, as proposed we actually get more colonels and generals and such. Lucky us.

Note that despite the Armed Forces having a significantly higher number of senior officers to personnel compared to most other national forces at ~1% (see literally every book on the military published in the past five years), the Civil Service are doing even better with a vast 3.8% of personnel at OF5 or above.

What actually matters to servicemen and women is that the redundancies are seen to be coherent, equal and fair at all levels, ranks and grades. Squirming around with suggestions that savings may or may not accrue is not really important.

I may be a thicky, but what struck me as truly shocking in the document was the graphical evidence of the significant increase in the number of senior RAF Officers over the years. No wonder you can't move for them wherever you go!
The NFL tail is truly staggering.